On Ne 13-03-05 20:03:27, David Brownell wrote: > On Sunday 13 March 2005 6:23 pm, Bernard Blackham wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:20:02AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > I guess has_pci_pm check should be killed from pci_choose_state. It is > > > > > probably going to create some problems elsewhere.... > > What tree are you talking about? The code I'm seeing doesn't use that > anywhere near USB, so by definition it can't matter. That's the > latest linux-2.5 tree... where FWIW I observe that pci_choose_state() > is unusably stupid, it will gladly return power states that the > hardware doesn't support. That is **NOT** what the original patch > with that routine did. > > > You need to change the USB PM stuff with extreme caution, else you'll > break it's ability to be a wakeup source, or handle selective suspend. > As well as its ability to work with the various different PM configs > that are possible with even minimal selection of BIOS, kernel, hardware, > and module config options. UHCI worked okay before. I'll really need to make pci_choose_state "NOP" in the current code, so that it can be safely added to the existing drivers. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
